Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

[Woodruff]

They are absolutely not scientific theories.

if you knew anything about science, then you'd realize that i won't accept a statement like "they are absolutely not scientific theories" without evidence to back it up. so i'll be waiting.

To go along with the rip-roaring evidence you provided that the two ideas are scientific theories, you mean? Hypocrite much?

fair enough lol... i have talked about it in other threads, but not here. i think we discussed this earlier in fact, during our discussion about monism and dualism.

So then...which "science" applies to theism/athiesm such that they are scientific theories? I am fascinated by this line of discussion, to be honest...it smacks of Intelligent Design.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

[Woodruff]

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

That is, quite literally, the argument in favor of Intelligent Design. I had no idea that John was an ID'er.

[jonesthecurl]

John has no ID'er.
Oh, oops, spelling.

[AAFitz]

http://www.facebook.com/fansoftyson

NDT's fan page uploaded this today, only to troll. I know it.

Is there a word for non-golf players? Yes...they're called "sane".

As are the Atheists...

[Army of GOD]

AAFitz, stop letting Victor Sullivan write your jokes

[Juan_Bottom]

Zing!


You know, NDT said in that very same interview that the closest word to describing him would be "Agnostic." But again, I'd stress, NDT isn't one of us who gets wrapped up in this struggle. I'm sure he finds it as interesting as the rest of us do, he's just not spending his time worrying about it.

[thegreekdog]

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

That is, quite literally, the argument in favor of Intelligent Design. I had no idea that John was an ID'er.

Just playing devil's advocate here for a second, but wasn't religion supposebly invented to explain things? Doesn't that qualify on some stretched definition of science?

[jonesthecurl]

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

That is, quite literally, the argument in favor of Intelligent Design. I had no idea that John was an ID'er.

Just playing devil's advocate here for a second, but wasn't religion supposebly invented to explain things? Doesn't that qualify on some stretched definition of science?

ONly if the hypothesis is testable. Science does not consit of saying "Look it up in the book".

[thegreekdog]

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

That is, quite literally, the argument in favor of Intelligent Design. I had no idea that John was an ID'er.

Just playing devil's advocate here for a second, but wasn't religion supposebly invented to explain things? Doesn't that qualify on some stretched definition of science?

ONly if the hypothesis is testable. Science does not consit of saying "Look it up in the book".

Hmm... that's how I got through science class (look it up in the book).

[jimboston]

i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are)

Stop right there. You're going to have to begin again, because this may be the most wrong statement I've seen in a really long time.

and yes, atheists do gather and strategize, lol.

I've never even "gathered with atheists", never mind strategized with them. The whole idea of doing so seems...useless to me.

I have never gathered in real life either... though I am more agnostic than atheist.

Still... one could consider dicussing religion in an online forum a strategy session... no?

Regarding the first statement... i.e. athesism/thesism = competing scientific theories... WTF!$#^^%@@%$!%

[chang50]

Well, I think what's being pointed out is that "atheism" isn't "anti-theism". SO while you might need a word for someone who is vehemently opposed to a particular (or all) religions, you don't need a word for someone who simply has no gods. Similarly you might neeed a word for someone who actually opposes golf* but you don't need a word for someone who simply ignores it.



*The word would be "jonesey".

Except theism and religion are not synonomous,as shown by the many religions that do not involve any belief in deities.There is a long established word for someone with no religious beliefs,irreligious.If you were vehemently opposed to them you would be anti-religious.

[jonesthecurl]

Sounds plausible, although I think that irreligious would usually be taken to mean someone in a faith who ignores its tenets. No?

[thegreekdog]

Sounds plausible, although I think that irreligious would usually be taken to mean someone in a faith who ignores its tenets. No?

You also don't have to be religious to be a deist. So, someone who is both uncaring about religion and deism... irreligious and irdeist? Ech.

[chang50]

Sounds plausible, although I think that irreligious would usually be taken to mean someone in a faith who ignores its tenets. No?

Unless I've picked it up wrong(always possible),irreligious people have no religion.There is always a lot of debate about religious definitions for some reason,perhaps because the whole concept is so intangible.

[jonesthecurl]

What do other people think "Irreligiosu" means?
It's not a word one hears that often today, and it might just be a better word than "atheirst" to describe a lot of people. What do people think?

[thegreekdog]

What do other people think "Irreligiosu" means?
It's not a word one hears that often today, and it might just be a better word than "atheirst" to describe a lot of people. What do people think?

I like irreligious. I actually like agnostic (the word) better and would prefer that the definition of agnostic mean irreligious (or at least indifferent towards religion and deism).

[chang50]

Sounds plausible, although I think that irreligious would usually be taken to mean someone in a faith who ignores its tenets. No?

You also don't have to be religious to be a deist. So, someone who is both uncaring about religion and deism... irreligious and irdeist? Ech.

It is true that deists reject organised religion,but it is a religious philosophy.To my mind if you believe in an intelligent creator to start everything off even if it does not intervene after that,you have a type of religious belief.

[john9blue]

So then...which "science" applies to theism/athiesm such that they are scientific theories? I am fascinated by this line of discussion, to be honest...it smacks of Intelligent Design.

I believe I've discussed about this with John before.

Basically, he's stretching the definition of science to mean: "trying to figure out stuff". Under that definition, I suppose religion is a scientific theory because it's trying to figure out how the universe came to be(i.e. god did it).

Of course I think that is an unreasonable definition of science.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, john.

i think it would be helpful to me if you guys gave me your definitions of "science". i don't want to explain why i believe religion is science and then have one of you guys say that i'm not conforming to your definition.

[daddy1gringo]

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

The term was popularised by Christians as a term of abuse against other Christian sects from my experience dealing with reformation and renaissance era literature. It's a standard term to come across in reference to Catholics in all kind of Protestant lit. It was kind of weird when I first saw it used- "the atheist Pope", I think was the term used, but it's basically a Christian term.

Isn't it a Latin or Greek derivative word? If I recall, putting an "a" before something means the opposite of whatever the something is.

It is, sure, I was just pointing out that it was popularised by Christians with regard to other Christians.

Actually, and ironically, it (the Latin equivalent) was used before that to describe Christians by their Roman accusers, since they did not worship the gods.

[Symmetry]

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

The term was popularised by Christians as a term of abuse against other Christian sects from my experience dealing with reformation and renaissance era literature. It's a standard term to come across in reference to Catholics in all kind of Protestant lit. It was kind of weird when I first saw it used- "the atheist Pope", I think was the term used, but it's basically a Christian term.

Isn't it a Latin or Greek derivative word? If I recall, putting an "a" before something means the opposite of whatever the something is.

It is, sure, I was just pointing out that it was popularised by Christians with regard to other Christians.

Actually, and ironically, it (the Latin equivalent) was used before that to describe Christians by their Roman accusers, since they did not worship the gods.

No argument there, just pointing out how it came to be popularised in English.